Dr. D.K. Sharma vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2021 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The writ petitioner Dr. D.K. Sharma has been teaching in the Department of Chemistry in the Ramjas College, Delhi since 16.10.1973. The petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2005. He applied for re-employment under Ordinance 12 of the Revised Executive Council Guidelines. The respondent No. 2, namely Ramjas College forwarded the petitioner's application for re-employment vide letter dated 27.5.2005 along with the relevant record. The respondent No. 1, namely University of Delhi vide a letter dated 24.6.2005 rejected the request for re-employment. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to grant approval for re-employment of the petitioner. The main ground on which the writ petitioner relies is that the respondent No. 1 granted re-employment to one Mr. D.K. Sethi, Reader in Economics, who retired on 30.11.2003 and to Dr. R.N. Gandhi, who retired on 1.3.2004 and that the petitioner is similarly situated and even has better experience of administrative job, having worked as Vice-Principal at certain point of time and is, therefore, also entitled to the same benefit, as has been given to Dr. Gandhi and Mr. Sethi. the writ petition is opposed by the respondent No. 1 saying that the re-employment can be granted to any distinguished teacher only subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University that it is not the vested right of any college teacher to be re-employed and that the respondent No. 1 has considered the application for re-employment in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 13.10.2003. The procedure adopted for considering an application for re- employment of the teacher has been described. It is stated that an application for re-employment is considered by the Advisory Committee consisting of the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Director (South Campus), Dean of Colleges and Subject Expert, which considers the application along with specific recommendations of the Governing Body of the College, bio-data, teaching experience, academic experience, research publications, research work, involvement in extra- curricular activities and physical fitness. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee is then placed before the Vice-Chancellor for approval. It is stated by the respondent No. 1 that after following the due process and procedure laid down and also keeping in mind the orders of the Supreme Court dated 13.10.2003 and the provisions of the concerned ordinances and resolutions of the Executive Council, the Vice Chancellor has taken the decision not to grant re-employment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that reference to the case of Dr. R.N. Gandhi and Dr. D.K. Sethi has no relevance to the facts of the case.

2. The petitioner's challenge is based on the ground that the order of rejection dated 24.6.2005 is devoid of any reason, that the action is arbitrary inasmuch as case of the petitioner was better than that of R.N. Gandhi and Dr. D.K. Sethi that the petitioner has been conferred the honour by the College in appreciation of his meritorious service and that the petitioner has legitimate expectation of being re-employed and denying such legitimate expectation could not be done without good reasons.

3. Before coming to examine the pleas raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to mention some judicial orders of this Court and the Supreme Court relating to the issue of re-employment of college teachers. In the CWP No. 1382/03 (T.P.S. Chawla v. University of Delhi), which is still pending in this Court, an order was passed on 12.5.2003, restraining the University from re-employing any reacher after the age of superannuation. This order was subsequently modified on 26.5.2003. The order dated 26.5.2003 reads as under:

Request is made to modify the order made by the Court on 12.5.2003. Considering the various submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, we permit the University to re-employ the teachers with a condition that they (sic) re-employment shall be subject to the order that may be passed by this Court in each and every case and further the application shall be made by the University in this behalf for the approval of this Court. It is further directed that their appointments shall be subject to further condition that they shall not be paid salary by the University till this Court grants approval.

This order was again modified by the Supreme Court on 13.10.2003. The Supreme Court's order is extracted below:

Pending disposal of the writ petition by the High Court, University and Colleges would be entitled to re-employ teachers on the basis of Ordinance XII Rule 3-A(2). But it is clarified that such re-employment is not to be in a routine manner, of almost all teachers. The mere fact that a teacher has served for a long period does not by itself make him a distinguished teacher. For this Ordinance to apply, there must be outstanding merit in the teacher. The revised guidelines issued by the University of Delhi and the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission must be strictly followed. Reasons must be recorded as to how and why the person being re-employed is a distinguished teacher.

We further direct that at the time of re-employment it shall be clarified to the teacher that the re-employment is subject to the result of the writ petition. Every teacher who is re-employed must give an undertaking to Court that in the event of the High Court ultimately holding that such person was not entitled to re-employment he/she shall repay all the salary and benefits (including perks) which have been received by him/her in the meantime.

In the event, it is found that the re-employment is not strictly in accordance with the Ordinance, liberty to apply for variation of this order.

The appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

4. The two orders, if read together, make it clear that the University has to make an assessment of the distinction of a teacher purely on the merit of the teacher without being influenced by the length of his service. The Supreme Court while modifying the order of this Court, made it clear that there must be outstanding merit in the teacher and the revised guidelines issued by the University of Delhi and the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission must be strictly followed. Further it directed that the reasons must be recorded as to how and why the person being re-employed is a distinguished teacher. Thus from the tenor of the order, it can be seen that granting re- employment was an exception and not the rule. It was made clear that if a re- employment was granted, the University of Delhi must record the reasons for granting re-employment for considering the concerned teacher to be a distinguished teacher.

5. It is clear that grant of re-employment after attaining superannuation is not a matter of right. The same is an exceptional benefit given to a distinguished teacher. This cannot fall within the category of legitimate expectation. Nor can it be claimed as a matter of career advancement like promotion. Provision of re-employment is only an enabling provision. It does not create a right in favor of the superannuating teachers of the respondent No. 1.

6. Having recognised that the petitioner could not claim to be considered for re-employment as a matter of right, the emphasis of the petitioner changed to the necessity to give a reason for rejection of his application for re-employment. As explained above, the Supreme Court required that reasons be recorded where re-employment was granted. The Supreme Court did not direct the reasons to be recorded where prayer for re-employment was declined. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgments in the cases of Harbhajan Singh Dhalla v. Union of India ; K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; Sahi Ram v. Avtar Singh and Ors. and Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. in support of his plea that even administrative authorities could not act in an arbitrary manner and were required to give reasons for passing an order. This plea was squarely covered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 1973/05, which again dealt with the case of re-employment of a college teacher. In para-16 of the judgment in LPA, the Division Bench observed as under:

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that while reasons have to be recorded in granting re-employment, no reasons are required in rejecting the prayer for re-employment. He submitted that this is arbitrary. We cannot agree with this contention in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court where it has been held that no reasons need be given by the Selection Committee unless required by the statute.

The Division Bench in that judgment also found that the procedure adopted by the University, namely examination of an application for re-employment by an Advisory Committee was a due procedure and that if such a procedure is followed, the Court could not sit in appeal over the opinion of such a Committee.

7. This Court also takes into account the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr. ; Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha and Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors. and The State of Mysore and Anr. v. Govinda Rao and Anr. in which an opinion has been expressed that in academic and educational matters, the Court should be reluctant to interfere.

8. The case of the petitioner has been evaluated by a Committee of experts. There is no allegation that the due procedure has not been followed. Although there is an allegation of arbitrariness, the same is only a bald allegation without any details from which certain arbitrariness can be gathered. The mere fact that two teachers have been granted re-employment is not sufficient to infer that the petitioner has been discriminated against. There is no allegation of any malafides or bias.

9. Keeping all the relevant facts of this case and the law, as enunciated above, I find myself unable to give any relief to the petitioner.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.